SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

A mixed bag of tricks

We're on a road to nowhere... That was the Talking Head song which popped into this talking head over the weekend. On Friday, seven people died after the pro-Pakistan Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists fired upon a Hindu wedding party in Baljarala village. On Saturday morning, these foreign mercenaries killed Mr Munshi, his wife, and their two young sons at Morha Patta. The same night, they massacred nine people in Udhampur district.

The next day, our poet prime minister caught the bus to Lahore...

After his return, on being asked about the demonstrations in Lahore against his visit, Atalji said that they were not directed against him but had "something to do with internal politics" in Pakistan.

And I was mad at Inder Kumar Gujral for his Pakistan bhai-chaara...

Another happy happenstance: The PMO has suggested "abundant caution" against making public the contents of the White Paper on Pakistan's ISI activities in India. The 125-page document delineating subversive activities in J&K, Punjab and the North-East, and the Bombay bomb blasts, may now be relegated to the home ministry's archives. And this, after occupying senior home ministry officials for over three months to ready the document for presentation in Parliament.

The Hindustan Times quoted "highly placed sources" from the ministry of external affairs: "The release of the white paper and consequential public debate over its contents does not jell well with the ongoing Indo-Pak dialogue geared towards an era of peace and amity in the region."

Excellent. I hope Atalji enjoyed Lahore's jalebis peacefully while the Munshis were amicably being cremated...

CNN founder Ted Turner has apologised for cracking a Polish joke about Pope John Paul II during a speech in DC. When asked by an audience member what he'd say if he ever met the Pope, Turner pointed to his foot and replied, "Ever seen a Polish mine detector?"

I didn't get it. For, if one really wants to offend a nation, this is how one joshes:

Two Pakistanis were travelling in a plane; one sat in the window seat and the other in the middle seat. Just before take-off, an Indian boarded and took the aisle seat. He kicked off his shoes, wiggled his toes and was just settling in when the Pakistani in the window seat said, "I think I'll go and get a coke." "No problem," said the Indian, "I'll get it for you." While he was gone, the Paki picked up the Indian's shoe and spat in it.

When the Indian returned with the coke, the other Pakistani said, "That looks good. I think I'll have one too." Again, the Indian obligingly went to fetch it. While he was gone, the Paki picked up the other shoe and spat in it. The Indian returned with the coke, and they all sat back and enjoyed the short flight...

As the plane was landing, the Indian slipped his feet into his shoes and immediately knew what had transpired. "How long must this go on?" he wailed, "this enmity between our people... this hatred... this animosity... this spitting in shoes and pissing in cokes..."

Since the surfacing of Jane Doe #5, I've been ruminating over the First Lecher: After being let off with a fig-leaf barely in place, the Prez, yet again, apologised: "...I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people."

Irreconcilable rhetoric, as expected. For the answer to a central question remains murky: What precisely is Clinton sorry for? Is it for hurting his family, or for "misleading" the nation, or for perjury in the Paula Jones case, or for pursuing a sexual relationship with Lewinsky? Whatever, I hope it's not for adultery. Yup, I believe that's no sin.

Oh don't be shocked, you holy-molies. As Taki says, "We're all slaves of our genes. Being oversexed is a necessary condition, but by itself not nearly enough..." We do what we do when the twitch is beyond conquering; the penalty for that "lapse" is not for others to give.

I think Clinton *should* have been impeached -- for perjury, for misusing his office, and for not administering after having been administered to. But not for the tug of his libido. From time immemorial have statesmen indulged: Indian emperor Udayama had 16,000 mistresses; Montezuma, 8,000; China's Fei-Ti, 10,000; Comte de Flahaut was the lover of three Napoleonic queens; and what to say about Catherine the Great or Louis XIV or Henry VIII? Shoot, man, even Britain's Robin Cook managed six!

To tell you the truth, Real Women don't wanna know. We love Byron-like figures, insouciant, devil-may-care, humourous, romantic and swashbuckling. Not these pathetic dweebs who, after the shit hits the fan, admit having committed adultery to their wives. And then apologising for it, sheesh. These are no Lotharios -- sadly, a dying breed in this PC age. These are mere yellow-bellies, who first bake a cake, and when it's risen, don't know what to do with it.

Accursed from their birth they be
Who seek to find monogamy.
Pursuing it from bed to bed --
I think they would be better dead...
~ Dorothy Parker

I hear that Totem, an American toy company, has brought out Wall Street Billy -- the first gay doll in a pinstripe. The little plastic hunk -- "anatomically complete," mind you -- comes in a range of outfits, from sailor-boy, to cowboy, to leathers.

Hmmm... Now I know that mom and dad wouldn't really mind if baby Jane idolised the unrealistically curvaceous Barbie, but who on Earth would gift Wall Street Billy to Junior...?

The Thackeray vs Litterateurs thing refuses to go away, what with the Marathi Sahitya Sammelan fracas triggering a fresh debate on the equations between writers and the welfare state... No matter what the ed. feels about a piece on it ("too parochial"), fact is, this convention is a HUGE thing for Ghaatis (and this site isn't just for Bongs and Mallus).

It began like this: While Manohar Joshi was CM, he was invited to chair the reception committee. Immediately, the usual gang of pinko intellectuals (Ratnakar Matkari, Pushpa Bhave, Nikhil Wagle, etc) protested that Joshi, being part of the Sena's "intolerant, violent and small-minded regressive political culture, is not culturally fit" to be on the committee. But, on the eve of the sammelan, Joshi was sacked -- and so remained chairman.

Next thing: The pinkos hosted a Vidrohi Sahitya Sammelan. It began with slogans hailing Jyotiba Phule, B R Ambedkar and Dalit novelist Annabhau Sathe -- accompanied by the Lal Salaam ('Red Salute'). The gist of every speech centred on the need to mobilise for a just society, a fight for equality and freedom and against communal forces who sought to deny basic rights to minorities and Dalits. Not a word on Marathi literature.

Now, any thinking politician would've let sleeping dogs lie, right? Problem is, that kind doesn't exist in the Sena: Balasaheb lashed out at poet Vasantrao Bapat (the convention's prez), because he had criticised the Sena's stand against Fire and the Congress ban on Mee Nathuram Boltoy.."Why are they criticising us now? Didn't they have any shame while accepting Rs 25 lakhs from the state government? If you are so upright, first return the money my government gave you and then criticise me."

The litterateurs claimed that the government hadn't done them a favour, since the money didn't belong to Balasaheb. Vasantrao charged in his closing speech: "Why should I return the 25 lakhs? And since when have you become a donor? From what I hear, you are only a receiver! Forget 25 lakhs, my soul isn't on sale for even 25 million. If the 25 million is given with arrogance, we litterateurs will spit on it and walk away."

Now it's true that we Marathis would rather have the money go to sahityiks than towards erecting statues of Balasaheb's pujyaniya mother. However, the question remains: Why did this self-respecting, freedom-loving, dignity-aspiring and freely-spitting lot go grovelling to the communal and oppressive government in the first place...? Why should a literary conference in a developing country cost a bomb?

Every state government is totally within its rights to refuse/grant monies to public causes as it deems fit: Once we cede tax, it becomes the government's purse. Secondly, exactly what service has the present lot of writers and poets done for society? Today's litterateur is a normal salary-drawing person, and enjoys either free housing and/or monetary benefits from the government. All the eminents are members of state-run literary bodies. What "soul," for chrissakes.

I NEVER imagined I'd ever feel this, but I'm *totally* with the pinkos on this one. If you really have a backbone, you shouldn't have even thought of asking for aid from a government you despise. Must say: The pinkos displayed character.

On Saturday, the Prasar Bharati Corporation deleted certain "controversial" references from Maneka Gandhi's interview for Doordarshan. Parts of the censored bit:

Q: Rajiv and Sonia, they were also there and were part of the family? What was their reaction to this [Mrs G's] terrible defeat?

A: Well, in the beginning they weren't there, because they went to an embassy because they thought we were going to be lynched, and then five days later we had to bring them back. Then they weren't terribly happy with it... [Snipped by me for brevity] And perhaps we saw it as a lesson and we set off to learn in a positive manner that what was that we or other people had done wrong. And what could be done to put ourselves right. So the three of us really took it as an object lesson.

Q: That is you, Mrs Gandhi and Sanjay?

A: Yes, and perhaps the other two [Rajiv and Sonia] also because they had not been involved so much. They took it as a taking away of privileges which they were entitled to. So it was a different attitude totally.

My question: What is the role of the Prasar Bharati? To protect The Shroud...?

Prasar Bharati CEO Kejriwal defended the censorship with: "The [programming] code seeks to prevent objectionable remarks about individuals in public life on Doordarshan."

My questions: Since the programme, Editor's Choice, *is* about details of a personal life an interviewee voluntarily shares, how can bureaucrats censor those very details? Two, what's the criteria for what's "objectionable"? Three, how does it apply in this case...? Hahaha... the answer to that itself is damning!

The last week was BAD for the Congress:

1. Atalji's bus diplomacy had relegated The Shroud to the newsprint boonies.

2. On Sunday, a leading daily published the censored extracts -- which illustrate the Italian's loyalties (must ask Maneka: Which embassy?) -- along with Maneka's accusation of the Congress: "They know how to do such things [censoring] since they have been doing it all these years."

3. The BJP-led government was actually beginning to look stable, what with all the allies supporting Atalji's recent moves.

So, on Monday, the Congress declared its opposition to the bill ratifying President's rule in Bihar... Guys, this is called Damage Control. Now, we shall see a lot more of The Shroud on Murdoch's Star News and on newspaper mastheads. Attention from Maneka has been diverted. And, the government is in a proper fix over Bihar. Instability: another old trick from the Congress' mixed bag...

How Readers responded to Varsha Bholse's recent columns

Varsha Bhosle